Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

The fear of human becoming extinct


Psalms18_28
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Who knew the Weasley family trademark?a shock of bright red hair?was tens of thousands of years old?

Fictional wizards and J.K. Rowling aside, researchers Carles Lalueza-Fox of the University of Barcelona, Spain and Holger Rompler of the University of Leipzig in Germany announced last week that Neanderthals, who died out 35,000 years ago, had the same distribution of hair and skin color as modern human European populations. By inference, that means that about 1 percent of Neanderthals must have been redheads, with pale skin and freckles. ... http://www.livescience.com/history/0711 ... -hair.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Moderators

Ghosts from the past... whose descendants may be found in Eastern Europe!
:roll
I wonder why the evolutionists are so insistant on the Neanderthals having gone extinct, rather than simply being mixed into the general population... creationist style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

"same distribution of hair and skin color as modern human European populations"

And yet we are to still believe they were not really human?

By such faulty reasoning as they use, one might as well say that since a tiny Asian and large African are so very different, one might be considered human but the other certainly isn't as high up the evolutionary tree so we can't call them human. :roll :bonk:

Humans are a diverse lot, yet all are humans. I see no reason to consider Neanderthal to be any different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Tools for the Ministry
No one knows exactly why Neanderthals went extinct, but the possibilities are also troubling.


I know why they went extinct. It's the same reason the majority of large dinosaurs went extinct and the same reason the mammoths are extinct.... it's called a FLOOD.

Everyone of these evolution articles I read amazes me, not because of the article, but because so many people spend so much money on education to become so ignorant.

C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
By such faulty reasoning as they use' date=' one might as well say that since a tiny Asian and large African are so very different, one might be considered human but the other certainly isn't as high up the evolutionary tree so we can't call them human.[/quote']

In fairness, I've never heard any biologists claim that different races of human being are different species. The argument that neanderthals were a different species is often supported by mitochondrial DNA studies. But if those are all bogus, we may as well say that the findings from this DNA study are bogus too.

"I wonder why the evolutionists are so insistant on the Neanderthals having gone extinct, rather than simply being mixed into the general population... creationist style."

Some claim they did, and in any case such a scenario wouldn't be outside of evolutionary theory (i.e. it predicts that this sort of thing happens).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It was either Darwin or his protoge that declared a mistake had been made in categorizing Africans as on the same evolutionary scale as the rest of mankind. He declared they should have been placed in their own separate category, or considered a separate species.

Other believers in evolution over the years have put forth that Africans and the Australian Aboriginals are separate sepecies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Darwin was wrong, and scientific consensus no longer agrees with him, though no doubt if you trawl the net you will find some wacko who does. I thought we were talking about modern research here, not the views of a naturalist from 150 years ago. When Darwin was making his views known, slavery had not yet even been abolished in the US.

What I'm interested in is this statement: "By such faulty reasoning as they use, one might as well say that since a tiny Asian and large African are so very different, one might be considered human but the other certainly isn't as high up the evolutionary tree so we can't call them human."

What faulty reasoning that who uses? Are you saying some paleontologist had just picked up a skull and said, "...that frown looks a bit different, therefore this skull must be from a whole other species.."?

Thing is, I'm not even trying to defend evolution. I just hate seeing other people's views mis-represented. That's why I also tried to pick you up on your comment that commentators today "overwhelmingly" think that people from as recently as 200 years ago were stupid. I asked you to back this claim up, but answer came there none!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It's mostly scholars that think people who were stupid in those days. like the flat earth theories that they love bring up in bible debates.


But if you think about how they study chimps... like this quote:

"Now we must redefine tool, redefine Man, or accept chimpanzees as humans."
from the Jane Goodall institute website

basically they are saying we use to act like chimps. but probably not 200 years ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

anyway, I found an article that you all would be interested:

http://www.understandingrace.org/histor ... _race.html

It was a terrible study and Darwin was smart to refuted it and say "all humans were of the same species" although according to the bible, there is only one human specie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Thanks for your responses Psalm18-28!

It's mostly scholars that think people who were stupid in those days. like the flat earth theories that they love bring up in bible debates.

Saying that people were wrong isn't the same thing as saying they were stupid. Here's John's comment:
Despite a rather large volume of ancient proof' date=' plus many modern day experiments which prove the ancients were not simpletons, there is the overwhelming belief that those people "back then" (whether thousands of years ago or just a hundred or two) were basically bumbling dumbells who just couldn't know stuff. [/quote']
So, the overwhelming majority of commentators (evolutionists?, historians? who knows?) think that people as recently as 200 years ago were simpletons, according to John. Not 'ignorant', but 'simpletons' and 'dumbells'. But do most people really think that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

No, they don't use theories like that.
And as far as creationists in the past, well i agree too. they are guilty as well since they don't exactly who the bible was referring to anyway ... so they go around assuming ...for example:The Ham's Curse or thinks God approve of slaveries when he himself brought slaveries out of Egypt. He knows slavery will always exist because of sins (Greed) , that's why God gave guidelines... and if you think about it, they didn't have machines so they had to use cheap or free labor to provide wheats, cottons, etc for the society.. That's why they wanted hold on to slaveries so tightly even though they know it is wrong

we are slaves too if you are working for someone so his guideline for slaveries also applies to bosses and supervisors or anyone who have control over you to make you work.

But on the spiritual side of slaveries, bringing his people out of egypt is actually a picture of Sins.. God is bringing us out of our sins (Jesus wash our sins away so we will look pure and white as snow when we face God... we are no longer in our debt of our sins)


it is true that some think chimpanzees,came from the same tree branch as humans, probably not the same line but the same tree. They are always comparing the percentage of how much each animals are similar to humans Which I don't have a problem with because we have the same designers... just that I don't believe we have the same ancestor as chimpazee. So it isn't just the use of tools they were excited about. It's much bigger than that.

Just to let you know, you don't have to have my type of thinking ( as far as evolution) to be Saved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
So, the overwhelming majority of commentators (evolutionists?, historians? who knows?) think that people as recently as 200 years ago were simpletons, according to John. Not 'ignorant', but 'simpletons' and 'dumbells'. But do most people really think that?


well, they keep trying to say belittle the bible, and belittle the people who witnessed those miracles. They would say "well... it probably wasn't an miracle. Here what probably happened...." and whenever someone have faith what the bible says, they call us ignorant and sometimes stupid for believe such thing (just because we disagree with them) ... depending on the person. But we believe there is God and He will reveal himself somehow even if He reveal himself through sinners (prophets in the biblical time and the bible itself). We are not ignorant or stupid.. just people with faith.

I am not sure they called them stupid though. but they called us that today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

[quote="John81"]Attend a secular university, read the books and other readings they give out, listen to the professors; it's clear as day.[/quote]

Have done, and I was never taught anything close to what you are claiming is taught. I think your claims about what the "overwhelming majority" thinks are untrue.

For anyone else reading this thread- you don't need to go to a secular uni to find out what they are studying. A quick surf of the net will bring up various reviews of what the consensus theories are in history, biology or whatever. What you won't find is the following:

a) Biologists/evolutionists/anthropologists/whatever teaching that other races of humans are separate species.

b) Historians/social commentators/whatever teaching that people 200 years or more ago were less intelligent than we are today.

Of course, you may find the odd person who claims these things, maybe even a web-site about it. And you may find wackos on internet forums making these claims, as Psalms18-28 has found. But that doesn't mean it's what the "overwhelming majority" thinks, any more than the ramblings of Westborough Baptist Church represent the majority of Christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I stand by my statements. I've attended several different universities and colleges and worked at one. I've also read a plethora of reports, books and other material as well as listened to countless lectures that attest to what I stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Well in that case I join you in deploring what is taught at the universities you have visited. They clearly bear no resemblance to any of the universities I have had anything to do with in the UK. Frankly I'm shocked that a mainstream Western university would teach that any other race of human being is a different species. Similarly, although history is not my area of study, I'm also shocked to hear that any historian would consider even people from antiquity to be any less intelligent than we are today. That belief is certainly not something I've ever come across in my 26 years living in the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I forgot to add, I do apologise to you John81 for doubting your statements before. If you say you've seen these things taught at secular universities, I can't argue with that. I find it very surprising, that's all. I would take issue with any claim that these views are accepted by the "overwhelming majority" in UK institutions. That's not my experience. and I do have a little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

[quote="Psalms18_28"] Just to let you know, you don't have to have my type of thinking ( as far as evolution) to be Saved.[/quote]
Thank you, Psalms18_28. I have come to realise that fact, with help from people like you, and that's why I'm here. Incidentally, despite having faith in an evolution model for the diversity of life, I'm quite happy to admit the possibility that I'm mistaken.

And just to add- I always value your responses to the stuff I post!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

To clarify one point, they didn't teach that some humans are a different species in the universities I attended. What they did, was point out how some did/do hold this belief and then the professors used that information to delve into the evils of "white racists", which most contended that all whites are racist even if they don't notice it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 9 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
    • Razor went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      First Post
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...